‘Guns Are Not Defensive Weapons’ Rebuttal (VIDEO)

Constitutional duties of care and protection “by the police” only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves.
Neither a public entity or a public employee “police officer” [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.
In other words this means the only people the police are duty-bound to protect are criminals in custody, and other persons in custody for such things as mental disorders. YOU have no recourse if the police fail to respond or fail to protect you from injury!

Your protecting is left up to you!

Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be.
Westbrook v. Mihaly, 2 C3d 756

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation
which would abrogate them.
U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 380 U.S. 436 (1966)

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional
rights.
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 946

The president cannot alter or modify the Constitution!

in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), to wit:
Congress … cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

Brookfield Construction Co. v. Stewart, 284 F.Supp 94: “An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government.”

“The State cannot diminish rights of the people.” Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516

“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”
Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908)

“…those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege.”
City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), where the defendant does not cause the problem, and the plaintiff is assumed guilty if plaintiff knowingly allowed or caused the harm to happen, or was negligent in preventing that harm when plaintiff should have and could have prevented it.

If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as they are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are (1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or (2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.